ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the separate booking of expenses for Unit I and Unit II, refuting the AO's claim of misallocation. Additionally, the Tribunal found no short deduction of TDS, as the assessee had deducted tax at source on both advance and final payments, including the specified advance payments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. The assessee had made full and true disclosure before the Settlement Commission, and the AO lacked the authority to reopen assessments in such cases. Even on merits, the CIT(A)'s findings were found to be correct.

The Tribunal held that the loans in question, including those from Dotch Sales Private Limited and other parties, were genuine, considering evidence provided, prior settlement commission findings, and the creditworthiness of the lenders. Consequently, the additions and disallowances related to these loans and interest were deleted.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable, as the funds in the foreign bank account originated from the father's earnings and had been accounted for in his assessment. The Tribunal set aside the additions and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes in some cases, while dismissing others.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the AO was not justified, especially since the assessee had made a full and true disclosure before the ITSC, and the ITSC's order was conclusive. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on merits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the cash deposits and loans.

The Tribunal held that the ITSC's order was conclusive and the AO could not reopen assessments without approaching the ITSC first. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on merits, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus and explained the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the loans taken by the assessee from the identified parties were genuine, especially considering the findings of the ITSC and the documentary evidence produced. Consequently, the additions made by the AO on account of these loans and the disallowance of interest were deleted. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued in contravention of Section 149 as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and the notice was issued beyond three years. Furthermore, the approval for reassessment was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the dividend income is eligible for exemption and the short-term capital loss is allowable for set-off. The Tribunal found no evidence of sham transactions or manipulation and relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding tax planning.

The Tribunal held that no order can be passed against a dead person. Since the AO was aware of the assessee's death, the penalty order was quashed ab-initio. The direction of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue of closing stock discrepancy was already decided by a coordinate bench in a prior appeal, where it was held that Section 263 was wrongly invoked. Therefore, the addition based on this issue deserves to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. The appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not justified as the assessee had made full and true disclosure before the ITSC, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on merits was also justified. The appeals by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, despite giving opportunities. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was not a speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's arguments and prior ITAT directions. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly invoked Section 69B and sidelined exceptions under Sections 50C and 56(2)(vii). The assessee had sufficiently explained the transaction based on the allotment letter date. For the second issue, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the AO for verification of the donation receipts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was in error for dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with hearing notices, especially when the notices were sent to an outdated email address. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the loans, including from Dotch Sales Private Limited, were genuine. This was supported by the Settlement Commission's findings, extensive documentation provided by the assessee, and the creditworthiness of the lenders. Consequently, the additions and disallowances made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceeding was invalid and bad in law. It followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. Coronation Agro Industries Ltd., which stated that mere information about CCM does not establish escapement of income, and reassessment based on suspicion rather than reason to believe is without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's lack of response, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the related application for registration u/s 12AB was set aside by a coordinate bench. Following that, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the error in selecting the clause was inadvertent and procedural, not mala fide, and should not result in denial of the statutory benefit. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for rectification and reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly with the CIT(A), as the delay was within 30 days of receiving the assessment order. The delay was condoned, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had substantiated the source of investment in the property, with the majority sourced from a home loan and past savings.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal considering the assessee's medical condition. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the said amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was already offered for taxation and considered in the combined cash flow statement of the Swastik group, which was accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). Therefore, no further addition was required in the hands of the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing one more opportunity to present the case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's affidavit. Observing that the matter should be decided on merits and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the same CIT(A) had set aside the matter for other assessment years in the block period and, finding the facts to be identical, deemed it proper to restore the captioned appeals to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to follow the directions given by the CIT(A) in his earlier order.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not comply with the AO's notices and filed wrong grounds before the CIT(A). However, considering that the assessee was not given an opportunity to rectify an error in Form 35, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the authority to reopen the assessment as the assessee had made a full and true disclosure before the ITSC, and the ITSC's order was conclusive. Even on merits, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions was upheld as justified by the facts and evidence presented.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by the pandemic and pending rectification application, and that the delay should be condoned with a justice-oriented approach. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application on technical grounds rather than merits. Citing High Court rulings against deciding on mere technicalities, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the case back to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to submit documents and decide the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 was bad in law because it did not strike out the irrelevant limb, thus failing to inform the assessee of the specific ground for penalty. This was considered a violation of natural justice and not a mere procedural defect.

The Tribunal noted that the timeline for filing Form 10AB has been extended by CBDT circulars due to hardships faced by charitable institutions. The issue of condoning the delay in filing Form 10B and the claimed deduction were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority, adhering to principles of natural justice. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 16-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting it was not inordinate or intentional. As the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that provisions for post closure and pit covering expenses are allowable deductions, consistently following its own previous decisions and those of higher courts. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on these precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee by deleting additions and penalties. For AY 1997-1998, the Tribunal set aside the addition and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering additional evidence. For AY 2008-2009, the Tribunal held that interest income offered to tax by the father could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee and confirmed the CIT(A)'s conclusion for interest income, while remanding the Long Term Capital Gain issue. For AY 2001-2002, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions and the dismissal of related penalties.